In the concurring opinion, Judge Voros says that
"getting a sense of
the common usage or ordinary and plain meaning of a contract term is
precisely the purpose for which the lead opinion here cites Wikipedia.
Our reliance on this source is therefore, in my judgment,
appropriate."
On this, he is grossly mistaken. A Wikipedia entry may reflect the
common usage. Most of the time, for most entries, it probably does.
On the other hand, it may not. And an appeals court judge shouldn't
be digging through the edit history to figure out which one it is.
This type of analysis should, if at all, be done by an expert witness,
who could be cross examined by the opposing counsel.
As it stands, all the Wikipedia entry showed was that at one point one
person wrote what happened to appear there at the time when it was
accessed.
Sometimes we have some strange name from British English or whatever that
someone thinks is the "correct" name, totally divorced from popular
usage.
Fred